DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because although it appears to be a limited to a single paragraph and under 150 word, however, it is not in narrative form written in multiple short sentences A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3, 6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boonsuk et al. ( Automated fixture design for a rapid machining process, hereinafter Boonsuk”) in view of Watanabe (US 10,875,136).
As applied to claim 1, Boonsuk teaches (Annotated Figure below) a method for machining a component comprising a first processing step (steps 1-8 under headings (c) and (d)) of machining a workpiece material (round stock) into a workpiece in which a needed portion is connected to an unneeded portion via a connecting portion by action of a tool (end mill) supported by a tool supporting portion on the workpiece material supported by a workpiece material supporting portion in a processing space covered with a cover member (a CNC rapid prototyping process machine has a chamber or covered area for safety features); and a second processing step (steps 9-11 under heading (e)) of cutting the connecting portion to separate the needed portion from the unneeded portion by using the tool supported by the tool supporting portion.
PNG
media_image1.png
625
666
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Boonsuk does not explicitly teach a state in which a door that divides the processing space is opened for a workpiece material transport mechanism to move into the processing space and at least the needed portion of the workpiece obtained through machining in the first processing step is supported by the workpiece material transport mechanism.
Watanabe teaches a machine tool system including a machine tool for machining a workpiece set on a table using a tool attached to a spindle; and a robot for gripping the workpiece. The robot is installed on the table and performs a setting operation for setting the workpiece on the table and a clamping operation for clamping the workpiece (abstract). FIG. 1 depicts a configuration of the machine tool system 10 according to an embodiment, and FIG. 2 is an enlarged view of a main part of FIG. 1. The machine tool system 10 includes a machine tool 12, a robot 14, a control device 16 for controlling the machine tool 12, and a control device 18 for controlling the robot 14. The control device 16 and the control device 18 can communicate with each other. The control device 16 and the control device 18 may be a single controller (col. 2, lines 42-50). The machine tool 12 is equipped with a splash guard (splash cover) 48 that covers a machining space 12a of the machine tool 12 and prevents cutting chips (machining debris) arising during machining and the cutting fluid from scattering around. The machine tool 12 is provided with a nozzle (not shown) that ejects the cutting fluid toward the tool 22 during machining. Though not illustrated, an opening is formed in the splash guard 48, and the splash guard 48 has an openable/closable door 48a for covering the opening. The opening of the splash guard 48 enables the replacement of the workpiece W supported on the table 28. The door 48a in the splash guard 48 is closed during machining and opened at the time of the replacement of the workpiece W. The door 48a is opened and closed by the drive of an unillustrated actuator (motor). The control device 18 controls the driving of the actuator in accordance with the machine tool program (paragraph bridging cols. 3 and 4, Figs. 1-4). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to employ into the method of Boonsuk a cover member with access door and a robot arm and gripper, as taught by Watanabe, as an effective means of protecting the workers from machining debris and allowing the transport of the workpiece material and finished workpiece to and from the machining area resulting in a process with shorter process time and thus enhancing the machining efficiency which would result in significant manufacturing cost savings.
As applied to claim 2, the combination of Boonsuk and Watanabe teaches the invention cited with Boonsuk further teaches wherein the second processing step is a step of cutting the connecting portion to separate the needed portion from the unneeded portion by using the tool supported by the tool supporting portion in a state in which at least the unneeded portion is supported by the workpiece material supporting portion (opposing 3-jaw chucks).
As applied to claim 3, the combination of Boonsuk and Watanabe teaches the invention cited including wherein the second processing step is a step of cutting the connecting portion to separate the needed portion from the unneeded portion by using the tool supported by the tool supporting portion (see Boonsuk). Watanabe teaches that the robot clamps and holds the workpiece on the table while the workpiece is being machined and thus, teaches the second processing step id performed in a state in which both of the needed portion and the unneeded portion are supported by the workpiece material transport mechanism (see Watanabe, col. 4, lines 4-17). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to employ into the method of Boonsuk the robot arm and gripper of Watanabe in order to not only transport but to hold the workpiece material (both needed and unneeded portions) during the second processing step resulting in use of less operational steps and thus, enhancing the machining efficiency which would result in significant manufacturing cost savings.
As applied to claim 6, the combination of Boonsuk and Watanabe teaches the invention cited with Boonsuk further teaches wherein the first step is a step of machining the workpiece material so as to form the connecting portion in a region in which the workpiece material supporting portion that supports the unneeded portion in the second processing step and the tool supporting portion that supports the tool do not interfere with each other (opposing 3-jaw chucks and end mill do not interfere with each other as shown in Annotated Fig. above).
As applied to claim 8, the combination of Boonsuk and Watanabe teaches the invention cited. Regarding the limitation of wherein the second processing step is performed at a position at which swarf generated when cutting the connecting portion to separate the needed portion from the unneeded portion does not scatter outside through an opening formed as a result of the door being opened, or at a tool attached orientation, it is common knowledge in the art of machining, that controlling swarf in a machine tool chamber involves optimizing chip formation through cutting parameters (higher feed rates, proper speed), managing evacuation with high-pressure coolant or air blow, and controlling swarf direction which is managed by optimizing CNC programing (CAM). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to perform the second processing step of Boonsuk and Watanabe in a controlled state and at a position to minimize the machining swarf from scattering outside of the machining area, thus preventing the surrounding from any potential contamination and damage.
Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boonsuk et al. (Automated fixture design for a rapid machining process, hereinafter “Boonsuk”) in view of Watanabe (US 10,875,136) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mori et al. (US 20180065208A1, hereinafter “Mori”).
As applied to claims 4 and 5, the combination of Boonsuk and Watanabe teaches the invention cited but does not explicitly teach a recovering step of recovering the needed portion separated from the unneeded portion in the second processing step into a workpiece stocker by using the workpiece material transport mechanism, wherein the recovering step is a step of removing both of the needed portion and the unneeded portion from the processing space in a state in which both of the needed portion and the unneeded portion are supported by the workpiece material transport mechanism, and then recovering the needed portion separated from the unneeded portion into the workpiece stocker by using the workpiece material transport mechanism.
Mori teaches a manufacturing machine 100 including a side cover 142 which separates a machining area 200 and an external area 205 from each other (paragraph [0041]). A transfer mechanism (combination of linear guide 22 and robot arm 33, Fig. 1) transports the final product (47) to a stocker (156) from machining area to external area (paragraphs [0041], [0042], [005], [0057], Figs. 1 and 2). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to employ into the method of Boonsuk, a recovering step of recovering the needed and unneeded portions in the second processing step into a workpiece stocker, as taught by Mori, as an effective means of storing the desired materials using the same transport mechanism thus, resulting in use of less operational tools and enhancing the machining efficiency which would result in significant manufacturing cost savings.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boonsuk et al. (Automated fixture design for a rapid machining process, hereinafter “Boonsuk”) in view of Watanabe (US 10,875,136) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gottschalk (US 6,325,697).
As applied to claim 7, the combination of Boonsuk and Watanabe teaches the invention cited but does not explicitly teach wherein the second processing step is performed in a state in which an output of a mist collector is increased relative to that in the first processing step.
Gottschalk teaches a CNC machine tool for processing a workpiece (abstract) wherein the machine is equipped with a vacuum coolant guard and a mist collection system designed to keep coolant off the glass and the machine guards. The vacuum guard itself has a fixed rear section and an easily removable front half; coolant and air are pulled up through the top of the guard and up to the mist collector via flexible hose (col. 4, lines 39-44). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to employ a mist collector into the method of Boonsuk to remove any airborne oil mist and coolant fumes which protects the equipment and workpiece from damage. As for the limitation of output of the mist collector is increased during the second processing step, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have been privy to the fact that additional machining steps (first and second steps) would generate more airborne cutting fluid mist and therefore, a more removal (higher output) of the mist is required to keep the equipment safe from potential damage.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Morimura (US 11,602,811) teaches a machine tool (title, abstract).
Miyake (US 10,773,350) teaches a machine tool with work transferring mechanism (title, abstract).
Nakamura et al. (US 10,065,324) teaches a conveying apparatus used for a processing apparatus that executes predetermined processing on an article, to convey the article between a processing position for processing apparatus and a wait position (col. 1, lines 13-16).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARANG AFZALI whose telephone number is (571)272-8412. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 am - 4 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Hong can be reached at 571-272-0993. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SARANG AFZALI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726 03/07/2026